A lot goes into an approval rating. But growth aside, a robust staff, long-term plans and a unifying vision are necessary for success in the polls.

Throughout the modern political era, there has been a correlation between the strength of the economy, the White House’s legislative record and the president’s approval rating. I saw this firsthand as chief of staff to President Clinton at the start of his first term — and it’s a lesson all administrations, Republican and Democratic, have come to learn.

Why is this not the case with the current administration?

Employers are hiring. The stock market is reaching new highs. But the president’s approval rating remains historically low. At first glance, it would seem the old rules of politics no longer apply.

This would overlook another factor that contributes to presidential approval. Americans expect their chief executives to make a serious effort to transition from campaigning to governing. This pivot from nominee of a party to leader of the free world has been a priority for past presidents of both parties — and it explains why the current administration’s poll numbers lag behind.

Immediately after emerging victorious from a campaign, a new commander in chief must begin fully staffing the government. Without a cohesive Cabinet and talented public servants in key roles, it is impossible to properly implement policy or respond adequately in times of crisis. No chief executive is well served when top advisers are consumed by infighting, or when important positions go unfilled.

Yet this is where the administration finds itself as its first year ends. The rate of White House senior staff turnover is unprecedented. Cabinet members often seem at odds with each other. Essential posts, including many crucial to our national security, remain vacant. Americans recognize that the federal bureaucracy can be reformed in key areas. But they also understand you cannot reform government by starving it. We are all better off when the executive branch is stable, well-organized and equipped to get things done.

Along with staffing the government, previous incoming administrations have sought to readjust their priorities, putting long-term policy victories above short-term political wins. In 1993, after a rocky first few months, Clinton spent considerable political capital to pass major pieces of legislation, culminating in a sweeping economic plan. These new laws were victories for the president. But far more important, voters felt they would be winners as well.

In the years that followed, businesses added millions of new jobs, and middle-class wages increased. It’s no surprise President Clinton’s approval ratings rebounded from early lows with the majority of the American people reflecting a favorable view of his presidency after his first year in office.

Not all presidents have taken the same approach to the economy, but broadly speaking, their common objective has been this kind of shared, responsible growth. Unfortunately, the major economic legislation passed in 2017 breaks with this precedent and has left many Americans feeling doubtful that their interests are being served.

Based on conversations with leaders in the business community and legislators from both parties, I believe that the recent tax reform effort began as a well-intentioned, serious attempt to simplify our tax code. However, over time, lawmakers appeared to become more concerned with achieving a political “win” than promoting economic growth for working families. The bill signed into law was the product of a hasty, highly partisan process, and its costs will almost certainly increase the national debt. The White House views its first major piece of legislation as a victory, but the majority of voters don’t feel it will improve their lives.

This leads to the third task presidents must undertake as they transition from campaigning to governing — expressing a vision that unites all Americans, rather than one that appeals exclusively to the base. In a democracy, a chief executive’s decisions will always have a political dimension. But in the past, Republicans and Democrats have both sought to reassure voters that they have the entire country’s interests at heart.

It is perhaps in this area that the current administration most clearly deviates from its predecessors. Given numerous opportunities to deliver an uplifting, unifying message, the president has not made a serious effort to broaden his appeal. Many voters responded to the president’s campaign promise to shake things up in Washington, but they also expected him to adjust his tone and temperament to suit the all-important responsibilities of the presidency. So far, those expectations have not been fully met.

In many ways, the coming year ought to be a promising one for the White House. If economists’ projections are correct, 2018 will bring more strong growth for America. The president will begin his second year with legislative momentum. But the administration shouldn’t assume that these two factors alone are enough to raise its historically low approvals, particularly with the added challenge of midterm elections on the horizon.

Unless the White House makes the overdue pivot from campaigning to governing — by fully staffing the government, prioritizing sound policy above political victories, and embracing a unifying vision for the country — Americans’ opinions of the president’s job performance are likely to remain low.